Jun. 30, 2017, 7:08 p.m.

It’s not hard to understand why Faulconer didn’t want to be a sacrificial lamb for the National Republican Congressional Committee. He obviously knew what an uphill fight the campaign would be. It’s theoretically possible for a Republican to get elected governor in California next year but it’s not very likely. ... There’s no guarantee the landscape for Republicans will be better in 2022 than it will be next year, but it certainly couldn’t be much worse.

Dan Schnur, professor at the Annenberg School for Communications at USC, on why San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer decided not to run for governor.

The partisan volleys have continued this week in the effort to recall state Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) over his vote to pass an increase in the gas tax. Those seeking to recall Newman submitted more than enough signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot, if they're all deemed valid.

Jun. 30, 2017, 3:30 p.m.

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer speaks during a news conference about the San Diego Chargers in 2015. (Gregory Bull / AP)

Republican San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, who has been lobbied intensely by GOP leaders to run for California governor, on Friday rejected the idea and vowed to serve out his second term at city hall.

Both House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) and state Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte had urged Faulconer to run.

A fiscal conservative and social moderate who has demonstrated crossover appeal by winning over Democrats, Faulconer has been seen as the GOP’s strongest potential gubernatorial candidate, and one who could help Republicans in down-ballot races if he was at the top of the ticket in 2018. But Falconer nixed the idea of a gubernatorial bid in a Facebook post Friday afternoon, saying he was "deeply honored" by "so many" encouraging him to run.

The NRA video, which urges people to join the organization, was posted earlier this month and features conservative commentator Dana Loesch talking about political rivals who she argues use the media, schools and Hollywood for sinister purposes.

California feeds the world with its bounty, fuels the economy with its innovation, fires the imagination with its creativity.

There is one export, though, that is far less celebrated: the unceasing torrent of outbound campaign cash.

For political fundraisers, California has long been the Big Rock Candy Mountain, excavated, mined and, ultimately, shafted by candidates of both parties who use the boodle to run for president in Iowa or New Hampshire, or Congress in East Podunk.

Jun. 29, 2017, 5:17 p.m.

A federal judge Thursday granted a request by attorneys for the National Rifle Assn. to block a law that requires Californians to dispose of large-capacity ammunition magazines by Saturday or face fines and possible jail time.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez wrote in San Diego that the rights of voters who approved Proposition 63 in November have to be balanced against the rights of gun owners.

"If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property," Benitez wrote. "That is a choice they should not have to make.”

Jun. 29, 2017, 5:10 p.m.

There would be tougher penalties for people repeatedly caught crossing the border illegally, and millions of dollars less in federal funds for so-called sanctuary jurisdictions such as Los Angeles under two House immigration bills approved Thursday.

Both bills would fulfill President Trump’s campaign promises if they became law, but the Senate has killed similar legislation and is unlikely to be able to reach the 60-vote requirement to pass the bills.

The House voted 257 to 167, with 24 Democrats crossing party lines, to pass “Kate’s Law,” which would create harsher mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who repeatedly enter the U.S. illegally.

Advertisement

>

Jun. 29, 2017, 3:50 p.m.

In September 2001, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) was the only member of Congress to object to an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a resolution in response to the terrorist attacks that paved the way for the war in Afghanistan.

In the 16 years since, the resolution has been used by President George W. Bush, President Obama and now President Trump as justification for more than 35 military actions in nearly 20 countries around the world -- which means those presidents have not gone back to Congress for new permission to send troops into harm's way.

On Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee opened the door to ending that 2001 authorization when it added Lee's amendment to a Defense Department measure. Congress would have 240 days to debate a new authorization. At the end of that time the 2001 authorization would be repealed.